Immunity decision out

This covers past, current, and future presidents. If Biden and the Democratic Party had behaved responsibly, not using lawfare against an ex-president and their top political opponent, this would likely never have needed to be ruled on. Blame your own party.

Biden can't now do anything to keep Trump out of regaining power other than winning the 2024 presidential election.

As it is, I'm not so sure Biden's lawfare when proven won't be decided in a lower court to be unofficial acts that are illegal and subject to his own prosecution as well as those who carried out these heinous acts of lawfare against Trump.

 

Catastrophic? That’s the word you choose to describe the economy with still near record low unemployment, record home prices, record stock markets???

LOL.

 

Not hoping for anything. Just saying if Biden shoots Trump in an official capacity you can't cry when he goes free. This is literally what the Supreme Court is telling you.

 

“Lawfare, lawfare, lawfare.” Lol. Don’t commit blatant and obvious crimes and you too will not be found guilty of 34 counts in a court of law. Not hard to understand.

 

They don’t give a shit about facts, they just want a dictatorship from Trump and don’t care how they accomplish it or how disastrous it would be for America. These people actively hate the USA and everything it stands for.

 

Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

Andrew Jackson - Trail of Tears.
Lincoln - suspended habeus corpus to "jail" MD legislators.
Cleveland - ordering military intervention on Pullman strikes.
FDR - internment of Japanese-American citizens.
JFK/Johnson/Nixon - prosecution and escalation of Vietnam War.
Reagan - Iran/Contra Affair.

Just a few of the examples brought to mind where a criminal prosecution may have been brought against a sitting/former President for "breaking the law," but wasn't. Only now, under Biden's DOJ, were such prosecutions brought. Thus, to claim that Trump is "the only president in history to need immunity" is to ignore the historical fact that Trump is "the only president in history to need immunity." I wonder why?

 

This ruling literally says the opposite.

 

Guys, how will we even Trail of Tears without immunity might not be the airtight logical argument that you think it is.

 

Mike Davis, goer law clerk.for Neil Gorsuch:

 

Fine. Move to Cuba or Haiti or Russia or North Korea. You are free to move about the world.

Really though, why? This ruling can be relied upon by Biden and all other presidents in the future, right? And apparently it really isn’t a new circumstance, just a reiteration of the status quo. I’m not a legal scholar, though, so I could be wrong.

 

The only conviction Trump will ever have will be overturned. The charges, the judge, the prosecutors, and the jurors were all political in their decisions as there were no crimes, not 1 or 34.

The feds refused to prosecute Trump so the New York DA and courts with Biden Administration participation stepped in to prosecute a federal election charge of obstruction of the 2016 election so they could pull out lawful activity that was past the time period to prosecute had it been a crime which it was not and claim 34 individual criminal charges. None of this will stand up to judicial appeal. It may have to go past New York State, but this bullshit conviction will be overturned.

I've said it before, so I'll say it again, I hope Judge Merchan throws the hardest sentence at Trump he can and remands him to the worst prison possible. Have we ever had all 50 states won in a presidential election? Reagan came close in his second presidential election. I'd love to see all 50 states vote for Trump.

 

If I understood that reply, I might be able to explain the logic. Care to edit?

 

The goal of this is to delay for as long as possible. They basically kicked the case back down asking for more specifics so that they can rule later

 

Not really. Basically, they ruled some nonsense but didn't define any of it, taking on the ability to shape the opinion for purely partisan reasons in the future.

As a reminder, the reason that many Republicans in the Senate wouldn't convict Trump in 2021 for clearly violating the law (as even they admitted at the time) was because they didn't think you could impeach previous Presidents because they were vulnerable to the legal system (judicial branch) if they violate the law. Now, the judicial branch is saying that isn't true. So, we have Republicans in the legislative branch saying that they can't oversee ex-Presidents for their acts and Republicans (let's be real here) in the judicial branch saying the same.

 

Back atcha hoss. Y'all won't be in power forever--a factoid Y'all ought to have considered before deploying lawfare and enthusiastically cheering it on, which appears to be backfiring epically.

 

Not sure what you are struggling with. Your argument appears to be that Presidents get to commit genocide because Jackson did and nobody convicted him. I am pointing out that maybe our goal shouldn't be that whereas you seem to be supporting that as a good thing.

 

Those were all clearly “official acts” of the President, another one you left off was Obama’s drone strikes. Some far righties playing along with anti-war leftist activists suggesting Obama should have been prosecuted for those (which itself was probably just reactionaries responding to suggestions W should have been charged with war crimes for the Iraq war debacle).

This is more like Nixon as a parallel, the actions are campaign self interest and clearly detatched from official duties of the President - thus shouldn’t be much discussion at all as to whether there is immunity (the answer is no). Now while this Supreme Court ruling comes off as “no shit Sherlock” and waste of everyone’s time, I can see they are technically overruling a lower court. So perhaps the lower court erred or was not specific enough in their “no immunity” ruling failing to demarcate official vs unofficial acts, “forcing” to Supremes to take it up? Not a lawyer, but the time to reach a “no shit Sherlock” ruling reeks to me.

 

"Lawfare" is term of art for people who are totally clueless about the applicable law, but don't like that the law is being applied to certain individuals.

 

Read the decision. Huge win for Trump
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/read-supreme-court-immunity-decision/index.html

 

Yep, lawfare is officially the new “got ya” catchphrase of the right wing. Lol.